This
matter is before the court on the Motion to Compel Expert
Disclosures [DE 17] filed by the defendant, Jacob Tovo, on
January 30, 2018, and the Motion to Strike [DE 21] filed by
the plaintiff, Sheila Washington, on February 7, 2018. For
the following reasons, the Motion to Compel Expert
Disclosures [DE 17] is GRANTED, and the
Motion to Strike [DE 21] is DENIED.

Background

Sheila
Washington initiated this matter on March 22, 2017. She has
alleged that she suffered injuries from a car accident that
occurred on April 10, 2015. Washington has claimed that the
defendants, Jacob Tovo and Hasmukh Patel, were at fault for
causing the accident.

The
court held a Rule 16 Preliminary Pretrial Conference on May
5, 2017. At the conference, the court set October 30, 2017 as
the deadline for Washington to produce expert witness
disclosures and reports to the defendants. Tovo has indicated
that Washington produced her expert disclosures, however, the
disclosures did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26. On November 17, 2017, Washington requested
leave to supplement her Rule 26(a)(2) disclosures, which the
court granted. Washington provided Tovo her supplemental
disclosures on December 27, 2017. Tovo has argued that the
supplemental disclosures are not rule-compliant. Therefore,
he has filed the motion to compel requesting that Washington
be ordered to produce complete and thorough Rule 26 reports.

Washington
filed a Motion to Strike [DE 21] on February 7, 2017.
Washington has argued that the Motion to Compel [DE 17] does
not contain a separate supporting brief and that at no time
prior to the filing of the motion did the parties meet and
confer regarding the dispute over the Rule 26 disclosures.
Tovo did not file a Local Rule 37-1 certification along with
the motion.

Discussion

“A
party filing any discovery motion must file a separate
certification that the party has conferred in good faith or
attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort
to resolve the matter raised in the motion without court
action.” N.D. Ind. L.R. 37-1(a). The certification must
include the date, time, and place of any conference or
attempted conference and the names of any participating
parties. N.D. Ind. L.R. 37-1(a)(1) and (2). The court may
deny any motion that failed to include the required
certification. N.D. Ind. L.R. 37-1(b).

Washington
has argued that the motion to compel should be stricken,
denied, or not ruled on because Tovo has not followed the
prerequisites for filing the motion. However, Tovo contends
that he took necessary steps to resolve the dispute. First,
after receiving Washington's first disclosures Tovo wrote
Washington a letter that addressed the disclosures compliance
with Rule 26. The letter included citations to two Northern
District of Indiana cases that outlined the proper Rule
26(a)(2) disclosures requirements. Next, Tovo has indicated
that after receiving Washington's supplemental
disclosures he sent a letter, along with the motion to compel
and a request for rule compliant disclosures to Washington.
Tovo has indicated that he never received a response.

Washington
has argued that the parties did not met in-person to discuss
the expert witness disclosures. However, the Federal rules
and Local rules are silent on in-person meetings. Moreover,
Washington has argued that Tovo failed to comply with N.D. of
Ind. L.R. 7-1(b)(2), which provides that parties must file a
supporting brief with any motion under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 37.

Although
Washington's motion has merit, the court will address the
underlying issues because striking Tovo's motion pursuant
to Local Rules 37-1 and 7-1(b)(2) will simply delay the
resolution of this dispute. See Felling v. Knight,
2001 WL 1782361, at *1 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 21, 2001)
(“[T]he briefs leave little doubt that the parties will
not reach mutual agreement on the issues raised. Therefore,
the court will address the underlying issues rather than deny
the motion solely on the basis of a procedural shortcoming.
To hold otherwise would do little other than delay resolution
of these issues . . . .”). Courts have broad discretion
in determining whether the moving party has satisfied the
meet-and-confer component of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
37(a)(1) and Local Rule 37-1. Sowell v. Dominguez,
2011 WL 4496505, at *3 (N.D. Ind. 2011); see Lucas v. GC
Servs. L.P., 226 F.R.D. 328, 335 (N.D. Ind. 2004)
(finding the plaintiffs' lack of compliance not fatal
when the motion reflected an effort to confer with the
defendants). The communication described by Tovo somewhat
complies with the purpose of Rule 37-1. Therefore, the court
will not strike the motion for its procedurals shortcomings.
The Motion to Strike [DE 21] is DENIED.

A party
may “obtain discovery regarding any matter, not
privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any
party, including the existence, description, nature, custody,
condition and location of any books, documents, or other
tangible things.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(b)(1). For discovery purposes, relevancy is construed
broadly to encompass “any matter that bears on, or that
reasonably could lead to other matter[s] that could bear on,
any issue that is or may be in the case.” Chavez v.
DaimlerChrysler Corp., 206 F.R.D. 615, 619 (S.D. Ind.
2002) (quoting Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders,
437 U.S. 340, 351, 98 S.Ct. 2380, 2389, 57 L.Ed.2d 253
(1978)). Even when information is not directly related to the
claims or defenses identified in the pleadings, the
information still may be relevant to the broader subject
matter at hand and meet the rule's good cause standard.
Borom v. Town of Merrillville, 2009 WL 1617085, at
*1 (N.D. Ind. June 8, 2009) (citing Sanyo Laser Prods.,
Inc. v. Arista Records, Inc., 214 F.R.D. 496, 502 (S.D.
Ind. 2003)); see Adams v. Target, 2001 WL 987853, at
*1 (S.D. Ind. July 30, 2001) (“For good cause, the
court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the
subject matter involved in the action.”); Shapo v.
Engle, 2001 WL 629303, at *2 (N.D. Ill. May 25, 2001)
(“Discovery is a search for the truth.”).

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.